A case in which the Court will (1) consider whether to affirm or abrogate its holding in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank that requires property owners to exhaust state court remedies before bringing federal Takings Clause claims, and (2) resolve a circuit split as to whether the ripeness doctrine established in Williamson County applies to takings claims that assert that a law is unconstitutional on its face.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Class Action Fairness Act—which permits “any defendant” in a state-court class action to remove the action to federal court if it satisfies certain jurisdictional requirements—allows removal by third-party counterclaim defendants; and whether the Court's holding in Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941)—that an original plaintiff may not remove a counterclaim against it—extends to third-party counterclaim defendants.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the US Department of Health and Human Services was required under the Administrative Procedure Act and Medicare Act to provide notice and an opportunity to comment before implementing a rule changing its Medicare reimbursement formula.

A case in which the Court will resolve a circuit split as to whether the Copyright Act’s allowance for “full costs” to a prevailing party is limited to taxable costs (as the Eighth and Eleventh Circuits have held), or whether the Act also authorizes non-taxable costs (as the Ninth Circuit held).

A case in which the Court will decide whether the appropriate test for immunity for governmental “sue and be sued” entities is the discretionary-function test, which the Eleventh Circuit applied in this case, or the test set forth in FHA v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242 (1940).

A case in which the Court will resolve a circuit split as to whether the “registration of [a] copyright claim has been made” within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) when the copyright holder delivers the required application, deposit, and fee to the copyright office (as the Fifth and Ninth Circuits have held), or only once the copyright office acts on that application (as the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits have held).

A case in which the Court will decide whether Wyoming’s admission to the Union or the establishment of the Bighorn National Forest abrogated the Crow Tribe of Indians’ 1868 federal treaty right to hunt on the “unoccupied lands of the United States,” thereby permitting the present-day criminal conviction of a Crow member who engaged in subsistence hunting for his family.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a state-law failure-to-warn claim is preempted when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rejected the drug manufacturer’s proposal to warn about the risk after being provided with the relevant scientific data, or whether such a case must go to a jury for conjecture as to why the FDA rejected the proposed warning.

A case in which the Court held that, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party invalidates the patent, even if the third party is obligated to keep the invention confidential.

A case in which the Court will decide whether an applicant for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Disability Insurance (SSDI) may use a vocational expert’s testimony as “substantial evidence” of “other work” if the expert does not provide the underlying data on which that testimony is premised.

A case in which the Court held that a provision of the West Virginia Code that exempts from state taxation the retirement income of many state and local firefighters and law enforcement officers, but not federal marshals, violates 4 U.S.C. § 111 by discriminating “because of the source of the pay or compensation.”

A case in which the Court will decide whether a false statement that is not “made” by a person under the definition set forth in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders can nevertheless be the basis of a fraudulent-scheme claim under Securities Exchange Act Rule 10b-5.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred when it ruled that equitable exceptions apply to mandatory claim-processing rules, such as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which sets a 14-day deadline to file a petition for permission to appeal an order granting or denying class-action certification, and can excuse a party’s failure to file timely within the deadline established by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), in conflict with...

A case in which the Court will decide whether the 1866 territorial boundaries of the Creek Nation within the former Indian Territory of eastern Oklahoma constitute an “Indian reservation” today under 18 U.S.C. § 1151(a).